Please point out where I placed any blame on the financial state of the NHL on the players. Oh, thats right, I didn't. You just made that up.

My point was, you at least share in the opinion that they are responsible for fixing the problem financially by giving up some of their paycheck. That is why you support the owners more than the players.

You just seem to have a grudge out against Fehr for some reason. I never agreed with all of his tactics either way, I just honestly believe it's asinine for the owners to demand salary roll backs, percentage drops, escrow withholdings, redefinition of HRR, whatever you want to call it....all or any of the above crying poor while they have no real plan to 'fix' the system. It's a pure cash grab and is not going to do anybody any good. Well, except those who stand to profit from it; the owners. The players don't stand to make one more cent from the next CBA than they did under the last one. So why do it?

Now for my question to you.....

I have no clue how you can realistically look at Fehr's actions and say that he has been bargaining in good faith this whole time. I really don't understand how you can stand behind a side and say that they are entirely in the right, when history and documentation have proved that they have lied and not negotiated in good faith. Instead, the NHLPA has been more focused on playing the PR card instead of getting into a room and negotiating. Do you have anything to say about this?

I didn't say he was bargaining in good faith this whole time. You just made that up. ;P

It's apparent which side is asking for more money here. Will you agree?

Both sides are playing the PR card. If you go back a few pages you'll see where I posted the email Fehr wrote and suggested I thought it was made public on purpose as part of a PR move by the PA. I don't think you can really suggest that the PA has played the PR card *more* than the League. I was under the impression the league were the ones who hired Luntz Global.

In the end, I just think the owners are wrong for asking for this restructuring of a deal that will benefit them financially on the grounds that the league is financially unstable while they have no real intention of fixing the instability.

My point was, you at least share in the opinion that they are responsible for fixing the problem financially by giving up some of their paycheck. That is why you support the owners more than the players.

You just seem to have a grudge out against Fehr for some reason. I never agreed with all of his tactics either way, I just honestly believe it's asinine for the owners to demand salary roll backs, percentage drops, escrow withholdings, redefinition of HRR, whatever you want to call it....all or any of the above crying poor while they have no real plan to 'fix' the system. It's a pure cash grab and is not going to do anybody any good. Well, except those who stand to profit from it; the owners. The players don't stand to make one more cent from the next CBA than they did under the last one. So why do it?

With me saying I blame the owners 60%-40% over the players, I don't see how you can make the claim that I support the owners over the players. Maybe it is because when I mention how much Bettman and the owners are greedy and they insult the players with their initial offers, you actually read "blah blah blah blah blah". When I mention how much Fehr has not bargained in good faith, you read that and believe I am biased. My advice to you would be to go back and reread some of my posts and get a firmer grasp of my position.

So why do it? Fairness. I believe that 57% is too much. The NBA and NFL negotiated 50/50 splits. The NHL should follow suit. Just because the owners are billionaires doesn't mean that they should take a loss. I believe they have as much of a right to earn half the profits of the league as the players do. It should be an equal split. If the owners made 57%, you can bet that everyone would be on the side of the players of they went on strike in order to make more money because they felt that 43% was not fair.

I didn't say he was bargaining in good faith this whole time. You just made that up. ;P

Haha, touche. I will give you that one. Instead of apologizing though, since you didn't give me an apology for overstepping your grounds on calling me out for thinking I believe the players are at fault for the owners demise, I will retort. I believe the issue I have with most people who are firmly on the side of the NHLPA is that they are unwilling to look at the faults of their own side while pointing out every little fault with the owners. In my opinion, that is ignorance at its finest.

It's apparent which side is asking for more money here. Will you agree?

Both sides are playing the PR card. If you go back a few pages you'll see where I posted the email Fehr wrote and suggested I thought it was made public on purpose as part of a PR move by the PA. I don't think you can really suggest that the PA has played the PR card *more* than the League. I was under the impression the league were the ones who hired Luntz Global.

In the end, I just think the owners are wrong for asking for this restructuring of a deal that will benefit them financially on the grounds that the league is financially unstable while they have no real intention of fixing the instability.

We are in total agreement, and once again I will say that the ownership is being unreasonably greedy. The owners can and should pay the players EVERY PENNY of what they owe on current contracts.

(If you read nothing but blah blah blah blah blah blah in those first two sentences, please back up and read again. I bashed the owners and its worth reading if you are a fan of the NHLPA.)

That should not be even up for negotiation. That being said, I believe that there is the framework for a deal here. Do I believe that the players should give a little and the owners should do the same? Yes. Why not give the owners that 50/50 split, but give the players a 2-3 entry level deal cap and then a 3 year restricted free agency after that before they turn unrestricted? That way, players get an easier entry into free agency. That would be a great tradeoff because then players could get UFA status while they are still in their mid 20s, which is the prime of their careers.

I didn't say that the league was playing the PR card more than the players. I just said I am sick of both sides playing it. Especially with the offers that are on the table that are being touted as 50/50, but in reality they aren't. That kind of boldface lying is just that....lies. When they pander to the media, and not get into a room and negotiate, it sickens me. I don't care how many times the players and owners decline the other sides respective proposals, get in there and work it out instead of whining.

I agree with your last two sentences. I also agree with your line of thinking. Which is why I don't agree with the league asking for the players to take rollbacks to current contracts. Contract limits and a 50/50 split? I agree with those things 100%. Earlier free agency for the players I also agree with.

The players are going to have to take a pay cut of some kind. That much is certain.

The 57% that the players got last CBA really was fair at the time, considering what they came from before the last lockout. When the NBA and the NFL negotiated 50-50 splits for the most part, you knew that the NHL was headed for the same destination. Now, how much of a pay cut is up for discussion. I believe that the players are entitled to every dime they have in current contracts. I also believe that the players should be looking at a 50-50 split. The problem I have with the league and the union is that they say 50-50, but in reality it isn't. If you look at the 3 proposals given by the players and the proposal by the league, which of those are an actual 50-50 split right off the bat?

Answer: None of them

I can find plenty of blame on both sides of the coin. Since you can't seem to find any fault with the league except for "not seeing the problem", how about I educate you on a few other problems.

League invites the players to start bargaining in January, but Fehr says he needs more time.League invites the players to bargain upon conclusion of the season, but Fehr waits until the end of June.Fehr holds off a full 3 weeks after the NHL's crappy proposal before he issues his first proposal. (Notice he is dragging his feet yet?)Being willing to play the PR card as much as the league is. Touting 50-50 split in his 3rd proposal was a outright lie, just like the NHL proposal was.

I could go on and on here, but the simple fact of the matter is that both sides have not been honest and have not negotiated in good faith. The NHL speaks one language, while the NHLPA speaks another. Then they go to the press and play the PR card. They get in a room for 30 minutes, decline the others proposals, and then don't meet again for a week or two at a time. Is that the sign of two sides eager to get a deal done?...

So players are are entitled to every dime in current contracts, but they also have to take a pay cut? Ok.

I don't have any issue with the timeline. If the league won't accept (or even bother to look at) the player's offer now, on the cusp of a shortened season, there's no reason to think they would have back in January. What good would it have done? All it would accomplish is that people with your outlook would just keep expecting the players to lower their offer even more. 52% was good enough a week ago, but now that the players have offered plans that hit that even with limited growth, it's no longer enough. Now you want 50. But even that isn't really good enough, it has to be 50% immediately, even though that completely contradicts your stance that the players should be paid their full contracts. The way I see it, the players were where they needed to be before the lockout started. Had the owners been reasonable, there wouldn't be a lockout. You can assume all you want that more time is the solution, and no one can prove otherwise. But I think it's pretty clear the sides are at an impasse. Further progress, IMO, will only be motivated by lost income. That wasn't going to happen in January or March or June.

As to the "PR card", I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. Seems like just a buzz word for irritated fans to throw around. Like "speaking the same language". Seems like you just latched onto Gary's latest soundbite, and you're using it now as if it really means something. Every meeting there are reporters eager to get what the sides have to say, and throngs of fans hanging on every tweet looking for the tiniest morsel of news, but when the news isn't "we have a deal" you all want to ***** about them talking to the media. Of course the statements they make are biased; they are biased. If they didn't actually believe "their side", there wouldn't be a lockout. I'm sure there's some level of concern over public image, but I don't think either side is foolish enough to think this fight will be won based on our opinions.

That relates also to the "50/50" splits. You may choose to call it lying, or categorize it as spin or whatever (By the way, anyone have any direct quotes from Fehr regarding the proposals?). I think it's more likely the media that's being misleading. Hyping a few headline bullet points and making everyone think all the details were written in invisible ink on the back page. As if there's any chance at all that either side was hoping to trick the other into signing. I'm certain all involved were well aware of the different caveats in each proposal, considering all of us were aware of them shortly after the proposals were made. For that matter, anyone with any knowledge of the numbers knew, even without the details, that "50% in year 1" and "owners honor existing contracts" just doesn't add up. The closest to an "outright lie" I see is Gary saying none of the proposals ever come close to 50%, but even that doesn't particularly bother me. I assume he's just referring to the aggregate % (51.5%-53.5%, depending on growth).

Case in point regarding believing the media hype. You seem to be under the impression that the 3 player proposals were some kind of 'good, better, best' arrangement, with option 3 being best. Obviously, you haven't actually looked at them in any detail. You're making assumptions based on what you think everyone is saying. You can be sure both Bettman and Fehr expect the other to be more diligent than that. Obviously, no one is trying to slip anything by the other. Just with the details from Fehr's letter, I was able to whip up a spreadsheet in a few minutes to weigh the different proposals.

For the record, the best (for the owners) proposal from the players varies with revenue growth. At a steady rate of growth, option 3 is the best up to about 4.25%, then option 2 is better up to about 6.3%, then option 1 up to about 8.1%. Then the players previous offer (from Sept.13th IIRC) becomes better. (I haven't checked with a year-year variable growth rate, since obviously there are just way too many possibilities.)

Now, I will point out that the players and owners have blame for the lockout. Right now I put that at 60%-40% in favor of the owners being at fault. I believe that every player should get every penny from every contract that was signed. However, I do believe that a 50/50 split is more equitable in the long run. Especially since the NBA and NFL both negotiated 50/50 splits in their respective sports. ...

Do I think its right for the NHL to ask for a 50/50 split in revenues? Yes I do. Do I believe that the NHL has the right to ask for salary cuts across the board to existing contracts? No I do not. I believe a deal can be made in this medium. So far, it hasn't been proposed. ...

I have no clue how you can realistically look at Fehr's actions and say that he has been bargaining in good faith this whole time. I really don't understand how you can stand behind a side and say that they are entirely in the right, when history and documentation have proved that they have lied and not negotiated in good faith. ...

I'm not sure how you would define "good faith". I'd say both sides have been bargaining with the intent of getting a deal done, and each side is willing to fulfill the obligations they are proposing. To me that satisfies good faith requirements. Though again, I'm not sure how they're supposed to negotiate from the current impasse. You can call it both ways, I suppose, as neither side seems willing to jump the fence. But it seems a little hypocritical to blame the players for not doing something you say you don't think they should have to do. I don't think players should take a pay cut, and I don't think they should take less than 50% in any given year. They are as low as they can reasonably go without doing one or the other, so I side with the players. I'm not blaming the owners for not negotiating, I'm blaming them for not moving off what I consider an unreasonable expectation.

If you think players should take a pay cut, or less than 50% in a year, then obviously you'd have a different opinion on how reasonable each side's demands are. But some of the points you make seem contradictory. Makes me think you don't really understand the situation. Like you're just mad because there's a lockout and you're going to hate everyone involved until it ends. Maybe I'm wrong about that, and if so, I apologize. But no amount of "belief" is going to make nearly $1.9B in salary & benefit commitments for next year equal 50% of next year's revenue. So maybe you could clarify which of the two (immediate pay cut or <50% in a later year) that player's should be forced to take. Because one of the two is necessary to get to 50% next year, or 50% over the full term of the deal.

Ending at 50% doesn't seem to be a problem for either side. Starting there is. 50% in total for the entire deal is. And if you want to bring the NBA in to it, then note that NBA players didn't take a pay cut. Their first year share was a bit over 50% (and they don't pay that back later), not to mention the soft cap allows them to go over. And going back to the last lockout, when the NBA was at 57% (plus a soft cap), the NHL owners didn't start the players there, nor was the sum of the full deal at that rate. They made it contingent on growth to get the players there at the end. So what's good for the goose...this time the owners need to start higher, and let growth get them where they want to be. If they want an NFL split, let growth get them there too. Only need another $6B or so.

With me saying I blame the owners 60%-40% over the players, I don't see how you can make the claim that I support the owners over the players. Maybe it is because when I mention how much Bettman and the owners are greedy and they insult the players with their initial offers, you actually read "blah blah blah blah blah". When I mention how much Fehr has not bargained in good faith, you read that and believe I am biased. My advice to you would be to go back and reread some of my posts and get a firmer grasp of my position.

So why do it? Fairness. I believe that 57% is too much. The NBA and NFL negotiated 50/50 splits. The NHL should follow suit. Just because the owners are billionaires doesn't mean that they should take a loss. I believe they have as much of a right to earn half the profits of the league as the players do. It should be an equal split. If the owners made 57%, you can bet that everyone would be on the side of the players of they went on strike in order to make more money because they felt that 43% was not fair.

Haha, touche. I will give you that one. Instead of apologizing though, since you didn't give me an apology for overstepping your grounds on calling me out for thinking I believe the players are at fault for the owners demise, I will retort. I believe the issue I have with most people who are firmly on the side of the NHLPA is that they are unwilling to look at the faults of their own side while pointing out every little fault with the owners. In my opinion, that is ignorance at its finest.

We are in total agreement, and once again I will say that the ownership is being unreasonably greedy. The owners can and should pay the players EVERY PENNY of what they owe on current contracts.

(If you read nothing but blah blah blah blah blah blah in those first two sentences, please back up and read again. I bashed the owners and its worth reading if you are a fan of the NHLPA.)

That should not be even up for negotiation. That being said, I believe that there is the framework for a deal here. Do I believe that the players should give a little and the owners should do the same? Yes. Why not give the owners that 50/50 split, but give the players a 2-3 entry level deal cap and then a 3 year restricted free agency after that before they turn unrestricted? That way, players get an easier entry into free agency. That would be a great tradeoff because then players could get UFA status while they are still in their mid 20s, which is the prime of their careers.

I didn't say that the league was playing the PR card more than the players. I just said I am sick of both sides playing it. Especially with the offers that are on the table that are being touted as 50/50, but in reality they aren't. That kind of boldface lying is just that....lies. When they pander to the media, and not get into a room and negotiate, it sickens me. I don't care how many times the players and owners decline the other sides respective proposals, get in there and work it out instead of whining.

I agree with your last two sentences. I also agree with your line of thinking. Which is why I don't agree with the league asking for the players to take rollbacks to current contracts. Contract limits and a 50/50 split? I agree with those things 100%. Earlier free agency for the players I also agree with.

The owners want longer entry level contracts and longer RFA status, not the other way around. The longer ELC and RFA is the longer the owners can keep players salaries artificially low, aka they won't have to pay them what their worth for a longer period of time. Owners would have to be semi-slow to go for a deal like that, hence why they asked for longer of both in their original 50/50 split.

As to the "PR card", I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. Seems like just a buzz word for irritated fans to throw around. Like "speaking the same language". Seems like you just latched onto Gary's latest soundbite, and you're using it now as if it really means something. Every meeting there are reporters eager to get what the sides have to say, and throngs of fans hanging on every tweet looking for the tiniest morsel of news, but when the news isn't "we have a deal" you all want to ***** about them talking to the media. Of course the statements they make are biased; they are biased. If they didn't actually believe "their side", there wouldn't be a lockout. I'm sure there's some level of concern over public image, but I don't think either side is foolish enough to think this fight will be won based on our opinions.

Dude, you sound like the one who hasn't been following the lockout. Each side has done nothing but throw around rhetoric. Small gains have been made but they seem more hell-bent on winning the PR battle. Don't understand what you don't understand about that, it's rather obvious.

With me saying I blame the owners 60%-40% over the players, I don't see how you can make the claim that I support the owners over the players. Maybe it is because when I mention how much Bettman and the owners are greedy and they insult the players with their initial offers, you actually read "blah blah blah blah blah". ...

Almost all your posts are arguing with those who support the PA, so naturally the majority of your points go against the players. Criticism of the owners is mostly limited to one little line in a whole post countering any pro-player opinions. Someone not following the entire debate could easily draw a wrong conclusion. Hell, I've been involved in a lot of it, and sometimes I forget.

The owners want longer entry level contracts and longer RFA status, not the other way around. The longer ELC and RFA is the longer the owners can keep players salaries artificially low, aka they won't have to pay them what their worth for a longer period of time. Owners would have to be semi-slow to go for a deal like that, hence why they asked for longer of both in their original 50/50 split.

Actually, the owners are proposing to shorten ELCs by a year. However, the purpose of that is to lower the value of the second contract. Consider Evander Kane. Had he come off his ELC before last year, his current deal would likely be $1-2M less per year. More than makes up the difference in year 3 salary. Originally they wanted it longer, but their latest offer is 2 years.

It's arbitration and UFA eligibility the owners want to push back a year now.

Dude, you sound like the one who hasn't been following the lockout. Each side has done nothing but throw around rhetoric. Small gains have been made but they seem more hell-bent on winning the PR battle. Don't understand what you don't understand about that, it's rather obvious.

Meh, one man's rhetoric is another's normal press conference. Seems to me the difference lies in whether what is said is what the listener wants/expects to hear.

Actually, the owners are proposing to shorten ELCs by a year. However, the purpose of that is to lower the value of the second contract. Consider Evander Kane. Had he come off his ELC before last year, his current deal would likely be $1-2M less per year. More than makes up the difference in year 3 salary. Originally they wanted it longer, but their latest offer is 2 years.

It's arbitration and UFA eligibility the owners want to push back a year now.

Meh, one man's rhetoric is another's normal press conference. Seems to me the difference lies in whether what is said is what the listener wants/expects to hear.

ELC's are naturally always different in regards to who it benefits depending on the player. A longer ELC will benefit particular players in regards to their team, while a shorter ELC will benefit other teams in regards to the player. Yeah, if they had locked up Kane on a long-term deal for less money earlier it would have been better for the Jets. However, it's different for every different players situation.

Honestly they should all just agree to keep it at 3 years, seems to work good so far, no need change things just for the sake of changing them.

Totally disagree on your interpretation of rhetorical speech though. Their is a difference between business and rhetorical PR speech to the public. The entire hockey reporting/hockey blogging community is up in arms over all the public rhetoric being thrown around that means absolutely nothing. Bettman and Fehr both come out of meetings and spew BS that makes their side look good, trying to get the fans and such on their side. Any intelligent person can read through the rhetoric and tell the difference between what is a PR scheme and what is actual business/work getting done. Both sides are to blame, however I'd call the owners/league the instigators.

Almost all your posts are arguing with those who support the PA, so naturally the majority of your points go against the players. Criticism of the owners is mostly limited to one little line in a whole post countering any pro-player opinions. Someone not following the entire debate could easily draw a wrong conclusion. Hell, I've been involved in a lot of it, and sometimes I forget.

Being as that 80% of the people here support the NHLPA, that is not surprising. So I can understand to a certain point. At least the people who support the NHLPA who have kept up with the discussion here could look back and acknowledge the criticism I have towards Bettman and his negotiating tactics instead of ignoring them. As I said before, people who say things like that are showing their bias and true ignorance at its finest. It really isn't hard to see that I have similar backlash towards the actions of both sides, not just one.

Meh, one man's rhetoric is another's normal press conference. Seems to me the difference lies in whether what is said is what the listener wants/expects to hear.

The hardline NHLPA fan will look at what Fehr is saying and do the, "He's the best, He's the best," impression. While they look at Bettman and say, "Lying moron!". Do both sides have points to consider? Yes. I just find the rhetoric unnecessary. I believe that both sides could improve on their public image even more so if they got into a room and negotiated for longer than an hour. Is it wrong for me to point the finger at both Fehr and Bettman and say that there has been a true lack of negotiation? I don't believe so. Here are where both sides have done a disservice to not only the fans, but to the game of hockey.

Uncle Gary says that operating costs have become unmanageable for some teams.
He has chosen to attack the area that, that in his eyes, is the most obvious: player's salaries.
What he needs to do is attack the area, that in my eyes, is the most obvious: the owners who pay the player's salaries.
He won't do that because they pay his salary as well.
Remember: 30-0.

"(I'm) not sure there is any reason to meet if there is nothing new to say," deputy commissioner Bill Daly told The Canadian Press in an email. "Our position was communicated to the union pretty clearly last Tuesday and then again on Thursday."If they have a desire to meet with regard to the proposal we have on the table, they know how to reach us."

This really sounds like someone who gives a rats ass if there is even a season. The Chancellor has taught you well Darth Daly.... Keep standing firm with your 7 owners and default coyotes vote and feed the players and fans BS. About 75% to 25% of the fans seemingly are standing with the players, the one's who gave back 24% of their pay last time just for the owners and GM's to let things get out of control again cause their deal broke and the GM's found ways to overspend and exploit the very thing that Buttman and "most" of the owners wanted.

Actually, the owners are proposing to shorten ELCs by a year. However, the purpose of that is to lower the value of the second contract. Consider Evander Kane. Had he come off his ELC before last year, his current deal would likely be $1-2M less per year. More than makes up the difference in year 3 salary. Originally they wanted it longer, but their latest offer is 2 years.

Actually, the two year ELC in the NHL's proposal is by design, not too lower value of 2nd contracts, but to delay UFA. While it initially looks like a give back to the players (i.e. the players want to get out of ELC as quickly as possible as the ELCs cap their earnings), it really is a take from the players when you combine with other proposals from the owners.

The owners want to push UFA back to 8 years from the current 7. They also want to cap contracts at 5 years. Therefore, if an ELC goes 2 years, then the max a player can get after that is 5 years....you are at 7 years, but still not a UFA. Forces players to go through 3 contracts at least before getting to UFA. Players are used to be getting big paydays much sooner than that.

"(I'm) not sure there is any reason to meet if there is nothing new to say," deputy commissioner Bill Daly told The Canadian Press in an email. "Our position was communicated to the union pretty clearly last Tuesday and then again on Thursday."If they have a desire to meet with regard to the proposal we have on the table, they know how to reach us."

This really sounds like someone who gives a rats ass if there is even a season. The Chancellor has taught you well Darth Daly.... Keep standing firm with your 7 owners and default coyotes vote and feed the players and fans BS. About 75% to 25% of the fans seemingly are standing with the players, the one's who gave back 24% of their pay last time just for the owners and GM's to let things get out of control again cause their deal broke and the GM's found ways to overspend and exploit the very thing that Buttman and "most" of the owners wanted.

Who cares where the fans stand? It doesn't matter one iota. They know you'll be back, as much as you protest, so what does it matter. Like I said before, when this is all over, noone is going to care who won the PR battle.

Faith is to believe what you do not yet see; the reward for this faith is to see what you believe.

I went to a doctor the other day, and all he did was suck blood out of my neck. Never go see Dr. Acula - Mitch Hedberg

No kidding. I believe that we have a grasp on what each side needs more than Fehr and Bettman do.

haroldsnepsts, you can be the NHLPA negotiatorI will be the NHL negotiator

Here is my first proposal.

50/50 splitWe will pay all current contracts3 year entry level contract limit6 year contract limitI want the new realignment plan as well

Any thoughts?

If the NHL made a realistic proposal like the lockout would be ended shortly after but what you are forgetting is that Bettman and the owners are doing this to renege on the contracts they signed and offered in the first place